DOCSLIB.ORG

Implementation Action Table

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Implementation Action Table Action Responsible Timeframe Capital Agency(ies) Immediate Funds Ongoing Needed Short-term (Y/N) Mid-term Long-term Completed Obsolete Land Use Element LU-1.1 Supporting Growth Action LU-1.1.A: Resilience Equity and Land Use DDOT, DOEE Long-Term Y Develop projects that decrease the vulnerability of people and places to climate risks and public health emergencies, as well as promote future resilience. LU-1.2 Strengthening the Core Action LU-1.1.2A: Central Employment Area CEA Boundary DMPED, OP Short-Term N Renew request to Encourage the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) to amend the boundary of the CEA depicted in the Federal Elements to match the boundary shown in the District Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Action LU-1. 1.2B: Downtown Center City Action Agenda OP Mid-Term N Update the 2000 Downtown Action Agenda 2008 Center City Action Agenda to reflect changing conditions, priorities, and projections (the Agenda agenda is Downtown’s Center City’s strategic plan for future growth, improvement, and conservation). The revised Agenda agenda should define Downtown Center City more broadly to include the multiple business districts that comprise the Central Employment Area CEA Action LU-1. 1.2C: Development of Air Rights OP, DHCD Mid-Term N Analyze the unique characteristics of the air rights development sites within Washington, DC the District. Development sites should address the growing need for housing, and especially affordable housing, reconnect the L’Enfant grid, and enhance mobility. Determine appropriate zoning and means of measuring height for each unique site consistent with the Height Act, taking into consideration the ability to utilize zone densities, the size of the site, and the relationship of the potential development to the existing character of the surrounding areas. Action LU-1.2.D: Development on Former Federal Sites OP Long-Term N When Center City sites shift from federal to private or local use, employ planning and zoning approaches that provide for the integration of the sites into the surrounding fabric of Center City. Replace the monumental scale needed for major federal buildings with a scale suitable to the local Center City context by reconstructing historic rights-of-way, dividing superblocks into smaller parcels, and encouraging vibrant contemporary architectural expression. Encourage mixed-use development with residential, retail, and cultural uses visible from the street and open outside of core business hours, as well as offices, to help support a living downtown. LU-1.3 Large Sites and the District Fabric Action LU-1.23.A: Federal Land Transfer DMPED, OP Long-Term N Continue to work with the federal government to transfer federally- ownedfederally owned waterfront sites and other sites as mutually agreed upon by the federal and District governments to local control, long-term leases, or ownership to capitalize more fully on unrealized waterfrontdevelopment and parkland opportunities. Action LU-1.2.B: Encouraging Livability of Former Federal Lands DMPED, OP Long-Term N When land is identified to shift from federal to private or local use, develop planning and zoning approaches that provide for, as appropriate, the reconstruction of historic rights-of-way and reservations, integration of the sites into the adjoining neighborhoods, and the enhancement of special characteristics or opportunities of the sites. Encourage cultural, residential, open space, job creation, recreational, and retail to advance ensure mixed-use neighborhoods, even if the site is designated as high-density commercial on the District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. C;coordinate with the National Capital Planning Commission NCPC, as appropriate. LU-1.4 Transit-Oriented and Corridor Development Action LU-1.34.A: Station Area and Corridor Planning OP, DDOT, Long-Term N Conduct detailed station area and corridor plans and studies prior to the WMATA creation of TOD overlays in an effort to avoid potential conflicts between TOD and neighborhood conservation goals. These plans should be prepared collaboratively with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and local communities that and should include detailed surveys of parcel characteristics (including lot depths and widths), existing land uses, structures, street widths, the potential for buffering, and possible development impacts on surrounding areas. Plans should also address joint public-private development opportunities, urban design improvements, traffic transportation demand and parking management strategies, integrated bus service and required service facilities, capital improvements, neighborhood conservation and enhancement, and recommended land use and zoning changes throughout the District. Action LU-1.34.B: TOD Overlay ZoneZoning Around Transit OP, DDOT, Long-Term N During the forthcoming revision to the zoning regulations, The language WMATA should include provisions for mixed land uses, minimum and maximum densities (inclusive of density bonuses), parking maximums, and buffering and design standards that reflect the presence of transit facilities. Work with land owners, the Council of the District of Columbia, local ANCs, community organizations, WMATA, and the Zoning Commission to determine the stations where such a zone should be applied. The emphasis should be on stations that have the capacity to accommodate substantial increases in ridership and the potential to become pedestrian-oriented urban villages. Neighborhoods that meet these criteria and that would welcome a TOD overlay are the highest priority. 306.19 Use zoning incentives to facilitate new and mixed-use development, and particularly the provision of new housing and new affordable housing in high opportunity areas to address more equitable distribution, should be encouraged. Action LU-1.4.C: Metro Station and Inclusionary Zoning OP, WMATA Long-Term N Encourage developments in and around metro station areas to exceed the affordable units required by the Inclusionary Zoning Program, with appropriate bonus density and height allowances. Action LU-1.4.D: Co-Location Opportunity Evaluation OP, OP3 Long-Term N Encourage the co-location of new development, such as housing or retail, as part of facilities modernization, expansion, and new construction. LU-2.1 A District of Neighborhoods Action LU-2.1.A: Rowhouse Zoning District OP Completed N Develop a new row house zoning district or divide the existing R-4 district into R-4-A and R-4-B to better recognize the unique nature of row house neighborhoods and conserve their architectural form (including height, mass, setbacks, and design). Completed Action LU-2.1.B: Amendment of Exterior Wall Definition OP Completed N Amend the city’s procedures for roof structure review so that the division- on-line wall or party wall of a row house or semi-detached house is treated as an exterior wall for the purposes of applying zoning regulations and height requirements. Completed Action LU-2.1.CA: Residential Rezoning OP Ongoing N Provide a better match between zoning and existing land uses in the city’s residential areas, with a particular focus on: • Blocks of well-established, single-family and semi- detached homes that are zoned R-3 or higher; • Blocks that consist primarily of row houses that are zoned R-5-B or higher; and • Historic districts where the zoning does not match the predominant contributing properties on the block face. In all three of these instances, pursue consider rezoning to appropriate densities to protect respect the predominant architectural character and scale of the neighborhood. Action LU-2.1.D: Avoiding “Mansionization” OP Obsolete N Consider adjustments to the District’s zoning regulations to address the construction of excessively large homes that are out of context with the surrounding neighborhood (“mansionization”). These adjustments might include the use of a sliding scale for maximum lot occupancy (based on lot size), and the application of floor area ratios in single family zone districts to reduce excessive building mass. They could also include creation of a new zoning classification with a larger minimum lot size than the existing R-1-A zone, with standards that more effectively control building expansion and lot division. Obsolete Action LU-2.1.B: Study of Neighborhood Indicators OP Short-Term N Conduct an ongoing review with periodic publication of social and economic neighborhood indicators for the purpose of targeting neighborhood investments, particularly for the purposes of achieving neighborhood diversity and fair housing. Action LU-2.1.C: EV Supply Equipment DDOT Short-Term N Encourage the siting of EV supply equipment in curbside public space, multi-dwelling unit garages, commercial facilities, and residential areas, where appropriate. LU-2.2 Maintaining Community Standards Action LU-2.2.A: Vacant Building Inventories DCRA, OTR Ongoing N Maintain and continuously update data on vacant and abandoned buildings, follow up on public reports of vacant buildings, in the city and regularly assess the potential for such buildings to support new uses and activities. This should include periodic assessment of the city’s vacant building monitoring and taxation programs and exploring creative ways to deal with vacant properties and long-term vacant sites. Strategically purchase such properties at tax delinquency sales when such properties could be put to use for affordable housing. Action LU-2.2.B: Education and Outreach on Public Space Maintenance DPR Ongoing N Develop a public
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DEIS for Washington Union Station Expansion Project
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Washington Union Station Expansion Project Appendix C1 – Methodology Report April 2018 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Washington Union Station Expansion Project This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Impact Statement Methodology Report FINAL April 2018 Draft Final EIS Methodology Report Contents 1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Study Areas ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 General – Analysis Years ......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 General – Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.6 General – Evaluation Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.7 Alternatives
    [Show full text]
  • DCPLUG ANC 3E Brief 4.11.19 FINAL
    District of Columbia Power Line Undergrounding (DC PLUG) Initiative Presented to: ANC 3E Presented by: Anthony Soriano and Laisha Dougherty April 11, 2019 www.dcpluginfo.com Agenda • Background and History • Biennial Plan Feeder Locations • Feeder 308 Proposed Scope of Work • Customer Outreach • Contact Us 2 Background Background & Timeline Budget Aug 2012 Pepco Portion DC PLUG will provide resiliency The Mayor’s Power Line Undergrounding against major storms and improve the Task Force establishment $250 Million reliability of the electric system May 2013 * Recovered through Pepco The Task Force recommended Pepco and Underground Project Charge DDOTs partnership May 2014 District Portion The Electric Company Infrastructure $187.5 Million Improvement Financing Act became law Multi–year program to underground May 2017 * Recovered through Underground Rider up to 30 of the most vulnerable Council of the District of Columbia overhead distribution lines, spanning amended the law DDOT over 6-8 years with work beginning in July 2017 mid 2019 Pepco and DDOT filed a joint Biennial Plan up to $62.5 Million Nov 2017 DDOT Capital Improvement Funding Received Approval from D.C. Public Service Commission on the First Biennial Plan 3 Biennial Plan • In accordance with the Act, Pepco and DDOT filed a joint Biennial Plan on July 3, 2017 covering the two-year period, 2017-2019. The next Biennial Plan is planned to be filed September 2019. • Under the Biennial Plan, DDOT primarily will construct the underground facilities, and Pepco primarily will install
    [Show full text]
  • Remedial Investigation Report (Draft)
    Prepared for: Prepared by: Pepco and Pepco Energy Services AECOM Washington, D.C. Beltsville, Maryland February 2016 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT (DRAFT) Benning Road Facility 3400 Benning Road, NE Washington, DC 20019 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT (DRAFT) Benning Road Facility 3400 Benning Road, N.E. Washington, DC 20019 PREPARED FOR: Pepco and Pepco Energy Services 701 9th Street, NW Washington, DC 20068 PREPARED BY: AECOM 8000 Virginia Manor Road, Suite 110 Beltsville, MD 20705 February 2016 AECOM Project Team ________________________________ ________________________________ Robert Kennedy Betsy Ruffle Data Management and Forensics Lead Human Health Risk Assessment Lead ________________________________ ________________________________ Maryann Welsch Helen Jones Ecological Risk Assessment Lead Background Data Evaluation Lead ________________________________ ________________________________ Ben Daniels John Bleiler Field Operations Lead and Report Compiler Senior Technical Reviewer ________________________________ Ravi Damera, P.E., BCEE Project Manager ES-1 Executive Summary This draft Remedial Investigation Report presents the results of recently completed environmental investigation activities at Pepco’s Benning Road facility (the Site), located at 3400 Benning Road NE, Washington, DC. The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Study Area consists of a “Landside” component focused on the Site itself, and a “Waterside” component focused on the shoreline and sediments in the segment of the Anacostia River adjacent to
    [Show full text]
  • ANC 7E Submission
    Government of the District of Columbia ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION 7E Marshall Heights ▪ Benning Ridge ▪ Capitol View ▪ Fort Davis 3939 Benning Rd. NE 7E01 – Veda Rasheed Washington, D.C. 20019 7E02 – Linda S. Green, Vice-Chair [email protected] 7E03 – Ebbon Allen www.anc7e.us 7E04 – Takiyah “TN” Tate Twitter: @ANC7E 7E05 – Victor Horton, 7E06 – Delia Houseal, Chair 7E07 – Yolanda Fields, Secretary/Treasurer Executive Assistant, Jemila James RESOLUTION #: 7E-20-002 Recommendations on the DC Comprehensive Plan January 14, 2020 WHEREAS, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) were created to “advise the Council of the District of Columbia, the Mayor, and each executive agency with respect to all proposed matters of District government policy,” including education; WHEREAS, the government of the District of Columbia by law is required to give “great weight” to comments from ANCs; WHEREAS, the Bowser Administration is committed to ensuring the public’s voices and views are reflected in the update of the Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 7E has conducted several public engagement activities to gather feedback from residents; THEREFORE BEFORE IT RESOLVED: The Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 7E puts forward the following recommendations: FAR SOUTHEAST/NORTHEAST ELEMENT Recommendations After careful review and consideration, ANC7E Recommends that language be added to the Far Northeast/Southeast Element to address the following issues: 1702. Land Use 1702.4. We recommend the following text updates: Commercial uses are clustered in nodes along Minnesota Avenue, East Capitol Street, Naylor Road, Pennsylvania Avenue, Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue, Division Avenue, Central Avenue SE, H Street SE, and Benning Road (NE and SE).
    [Show full text]
  • Tazjrri ADDITIONAL HCF4ES NEEDED- We N.W.—Very Substantial Row Rd.)—Spacious Bpring 4-7453
    THE EVENING STAR t APTS. UNFURN.—MD. (Coat.) APTS. UNFURNISHED—MD. |APTS. UNFURN.—VA. <C««it.> (HOUSES UNFURNISHED (Cent.) HOUSES for SALE—N.W. (Cont. > HOUStS FOR SALE—N.W. Washington, D. C. A-16 SILVER SPRING—I and 2 bedrm,. HARBOR TERRACE APARTMENTS COLORED—TAYLOR NR. 3RD ST. OVERLOOK* ROCK CREEK PARK— Excellent Terms to MONDAY. MAY30. 13.. S j (4 and 5 large rooms). Newly If you are interested In an apt con- N.W’.—6 rooms, fas heat, finished Beautiful aulet street of magnifi- - decorated. SBS 50 to §98.50. incl. venient to National Airport, we bsmt.. built-in garage: conven. cent homes bordering the park and I utils. HE. 4-7014. —5 2-BEDROOM have newly redecorated. 1-bedroom; transp : public, parochial schools; iust a few minutes from downtown. Responsible Purchaser Am. (Cent.) apts. p*r Handsome white brk.. New Orleans N.W. location nr. Walter Reed. Det. UNFUHN—P.c. SILVER SPRING—NewIy dec.: conv from $70.75 to $75.75 SIOO. Call 10 to 4. V. D. JOHN- bathe, location; bedrm- liv. dinette, mo., incl. utils. For inspection, appiy Nwd 1 STON, HU. 3-4615. —3l Colonial superb Quality Year- brick. 4 bedrmg., 2 rec. rm.. 1 rm.. HOMES i of det. brick gar. TA. kit. and bath: $75.80 mo. JU. at Apt. 1, 1301 Abingdon drive. 'round air-conditioning, library and Eves.. 9-1699 9-3490; after 6. LO 5-4800. —2 Alexandria. ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ HOUSES WANTED TO RENT lavatory on Ist floor: four twin- or TU. 2-6194. DE LI'XE 2 BEDROOM APIS .
    [Show full text]
  • District Columbia
    PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN for the Appendices B - I DISTRICT of COLUMBIA AYERS SAINT GROSS ARCHITECTS + PLANNERS | FIELDNG NAIR INTERNATIONAL TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A: School Listing (See Master Plan) APPENDIX B: DCPS and Charter Schools Listing By Neighborhood Cluster ..................................... 1 APPENDIX C: Complete Enrollment, Capacity and Utilization Study ............................................... 7 APPENDIX D: Complete Population and Enrollment Forecast Study ............................................... 29 APPENDIX E: Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................ 51 APPENDIX F: Cluster Demographic Summary .................................................................................. 63 APPENDIX G: Complete Facility Condition, Quality and Efficacy Study ............................................ 157 APPENDIX H: DCPS Educational Facilities Effectiveness Instrument (EFEI) ...................................... 195 APPENDIX I: Neighborhood Attendance Participation .................................................................... 311 Cover Photograph: Capital City Public Charter School by Drew Angerer APPENDIX B: DCPS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS LISTING BY NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTER Cluster Cluster Name DCPS Schools PCS Schools Number • Oyster-Adams Bilingual School (Adams) Kalorama Heights, Adams (Lower) 1 • Education Strengthens Families (Esf) PCS Morgan, Lanier Heights • H.D. Cooke Elementary School • Marie Reed Elementary School
    [Show full text]
  • Suburbanization Historic Context and Survey Methodology
    INTRODUCTION The geographical area for this project is Maryland’s 42-mile section of the I-95/I- 495 Capital Beltway. The historic context was developed for applicability in the broad area encompassed within the Beltway. The survey of historic resources was applied to a more limited corridor along I-495, where resources abutting the Beltway ranged from neighborhoods of simple Cape Cods to large-scale Colonial Revival neighborhoods. The process of preparing this Suburbanization Context consisted of: • conducting an initial reconnaissance survey to establish the extant resources in the project area; • developing a history of suburbanization, including a study of community design in the suburbs and building patterns within them; • defining and delineating anticipated suburban property types; • developing a framework for evaluating their significance; • proposing a survey methodology tailored to these property types; • and conducting a survey and National Register evaluation of resources within the limited corridor along I-495. The historic context was planned and executed according to the following goals: • to briefly cover the trends which influenced suburbanization throughout the United States and to illustrate examples which highlight the trends; • to present more detail in statewide trends, which focused on Baltimore as the primary area of earliest and typical suburban growth within the state; • and, to focus at a more detailed level on the local suburbanization development trends in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, particularly the Maryland counties of Montgomery and Prince George’s. Although related to transportation routes such as railroad lines, trolley lines, and highways and freeways, the location and layout of Washington’s suburbs were influenced by the special nature of the Capital city and its dependence on a growing bureaucracy and not the typical urban industrial base.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor
    VOLUME I Executive Summary and Main Report Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation January 2004 Disclaimer: This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation solely in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof, nor does it express any opinion whatsoever on the merit or desirability of the project(s) described herein. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Any trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Note: In an effort to better inform the public, this document contains references to a number of Internet web sites. Web site locations change rapidly and, while every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of these references as of the date of publication, the references may prove to be invalid in the future. Should an FRA document prove difficult to find, readers should access the FRA web site (www.fra.dot.gov) and search by the document’s title or subject. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FRA/RDV-04/02 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date January 2004 Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor⎯Volume I 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors: 8. Performing Organization Report No. For the engineering contractor: Michael C. Holowaty, Project Manager For the sponsoring agency: Richard U. Cogswell and Neil E. Moyer 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Year 2021 Committee Budget Report
    FISCAL YEAR 2021 COMMITTEE BUDGET REPORT TO: Members of the Council of the District of Columbia FROM: Councilmember Mary M. Cheh Chairperson, Committee on Transportation & the Environment DATE: June 25, 2020 SUBJECT: DRAFT Report and recommendations of the Committee on Transportation & the Environment on the Fiscal Year 2021 budget for agencies under its purview The Committee on Transportation & the Environment (“Committee”), having conducted hearings and received testimony on the Mayor’s proposed operating and capital budgets for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021 for the agencies under its jurisdiction, reports its recommendations for review and consideration by the Committee of the Whole. The Committee also comments on several sections in the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Support Act of 2020, as proposed by the Mayor, and proposes several of its own subtitles. Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................... 3 A. Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................... 3 B. Operating Budget Summary Table .................................................................................................. 7 C. Full-Time Equivalent Summary Table ............................................................................................. 9 D. Operating & Capital Budget Ledgers ........................................................................................... 11 E. Committee Transfers ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Interior Flooding in Washington, DC a First Look at Where It Occurs in the District of Columbia
    Interior Flooding in Washington, DC A first look at where it occurs in the District of Columbia DC Silver Jackets Interior Flooding Task Group August 25, 2017 Figure 1: A portion of the map produced by the DC Silver Jackets that is the subject of this paper. The full map is at the end of the document. Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 About the DC Silver Jackets ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 What is Interior Flooding? ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Why Study Interior Flooding? ................................................................................................................................. 3 Report Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Background .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Recent Interior Flood Events .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ward 7 Heritage Guide
    WARD 7 HERITAGE GUIDE A Discussion of Ward 7 Cultural and Heritage Resources Ward 7 Heritage Guide Text by Patsy M. Fletcher, DC Historic Preservation Office Design by Kim Elliott, DC Historic Preservation Office Published 2013 Unless stated otherwise, photographs and images are from the DC Office of Planning collection. This project has been funded in part by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund grant funds, administered by the District of Columbia’s Historic Preservation Office. The contents and opinions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Department of the Interior. This program has received Federal financial assistance for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the District of Columbia. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its Federally assisted programs. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction......................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Housing in the Nation's Capital
    Housing in the Nation’s2005 Capital Foreword . 2 About the Authors. 4 Acknowledgments. 4 Executive Summary . 5 Introduction. 12 Chapter 1 City Revitalization and Regional Context . 15 Chapter 2 Contrasts Across the District’s Neighborhoods . 20 Chapter 3 Homeownership Out of Reach. 29 Chapter 4 Narrowing Rental Options. 35 Chapter 5 Closing the Gap . 43 Endnotes . 53 References . 56 Appendices . 57 Prepared for the Fannie Mae Foundation by the Urban Institute Margery Austin Turner G. Thomas Kingsley Kathryn L. S. Pettit Jessica Cigna Michael Eiseman HOUSING IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL 2005 Foreword Last year’s Housing in the Nation’s Capital These trends provide cause for celebration. adopted a regional perspective to illuminate the The District stands at the center of what is housing affordability challenges confronting arguably the nation’s strongest regional econ- Washington, D.C. The report showed that the omy, and the city’s housing market is sizzling. region’s strong but geographically unbalanced But these facts mask a much more somber growth is fueling sprawl, degrading the envi- reality, one of mounting hardship and declining ronment, and — most ominously — straining opportunity for many District families. Home the capacity of working families to find homes price escalation is squeezing families — espe- they can afford. The report provided a portrait cially minority and working families — out of of a region under stress, struggling against the city’s housing market. Between 2000 and forces with the potential to do real harm to 2003, the share of minority home buyers in the the quality of life throughout the Washington District fell from 43 percent to 37 percent.
    [Show full text]